Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.108

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.153

-0.429, 0.173

0.405

time_point

1st

2nd

0.030

0.131

-0.227, 0.287

0.819

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.191

0.190

-0.181, 0.562

0.316

Pseudo R square

0.004

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.381

-0.826, 0.666

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.159

0.236

-0.622, 0.304

0.502

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.00

0.343

0.329, 1.67

0.004

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.503

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.712

-1.06, 1.73

0.637

time_point

1st

2nd

0.693

0.383

-0.058, 1.44

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.995

0.556

-0.096, 2.09

0.075

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.182

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.258

-0.474, 0.538

0.901

time_point

1st

2nd

0.043

0.169

-0.288, 0.374

0.798

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.259

0.245

-0.221, 0.740

0.291

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.290

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.410

-0.459, 1.15

0.402

time_point

1st

2nd

0.409

0.247

-0.076, 0.894

0.100

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.396

0.359

-0.308, 1.10

0.272

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.545, 0.913

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.343

0.201

-0.051, 0.737

0.090

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.303

0.292

-0.270, 0.875

0.301

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.214

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.303

-0.985, 0.201

0.196

time_point

1st

2nd

0.119

0.205

-0.282, 0.521

0.561

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.721

0.297

0.140, 1.30

0.016

Pseudo R square

0.015

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.877

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.240

-3.72, 1.14

0.300

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.44

0.619

-2.65, -0.223

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.109

0.900

-1.87, 1.65

0.904

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.409

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.579

-1.14, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.432

0.332

-0.219, 1.08

0.194

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.112

0.482

-0.833, 1.06

0.817

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.513

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.725

-0.581, 2.26

0.248

time_point

1st

2nd

0.477

0.402

-0.311, 1.26

0.237

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.222

0.583

-0.921, 1.37

0.704

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.643

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.909

-0.414, 3.15

0.133

time_point

1st

2nd

1.30

0.472

0.370, 2.22

0.007

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.013

0.686

-1.36, 1.33

0.985

Pseudo R square

0.016

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.336

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.475

-0.579, 1.28

0.459

time_point

1st

2nd

0.448

0.248

-0.039, 0.934

0.073

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.051

0.360

-0.757, 0.655

0.888

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.543

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.768

-1.51, 1.51

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.792

0.410

-0.012, 1.60

0.055

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.383

0.596

-0.785, 1.55

0.521

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.629

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.889

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

1.17

0.458

0.274, 2.07

0.011

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.182

0.665

-1.49, 1.12

0.784

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.388

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.548

-0.315, 1.83

0.167

time_point

1st

2nd

0.623

0.335

-0.033, 1.28

0.064

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.500

0.485

-0.451, 1.45

0.304

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.354

0.051, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.003

0.198

-0.392, 0.385

0.986

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.341

0.287

-0.222, 0.905

0.236

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.284

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.402

-0.396, 1.18

0.330

time_point

1st

2nd

0.378

0.221

-0.055, 0.811

0.089

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.259

0.321

-0.370, 0.888

0.420

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.415

-0.118, 1.51

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.347

0.212

-0.068, 0.762

0.103

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.129

0.308

-0.474, 0.732

0.676

Pseudo R square

0.016

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.537

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.759

-0.401, 2.58

0.153

time_point

1st

2nd

0.725

0.370

0.000, 1.45

0.051

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.400

0.537

-0.653, 1.45

0.457

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.820

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.160

-3.49, 1.06

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.849

0.601

-2.03, 0.328

0.159

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.10

0.872

-2.81, 0.613

0.210

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.444

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.629

-0.224, 2.24

0.110

time_point

1st

2nd

0.363

0.326

-0.276, 1.00

0.267

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.523

0.474

-0.406, 1.45

0.271

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.361

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.510

0.009, 2.01

0.049

time_point

1st

2nd

0.602

0.287

0.040, 1.16

0.037

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.217

0.416

-0.599, 1.03

0.602

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.766

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.084

-0.109, 4.14

0.064

time_point

1st

2nd

0.966

0.558

-0.127, 2.06

0.085

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.748

0.810

-0.840, 2.34

0.357

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.142

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.201

-0.466, 0.322

0.720

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.132

0.152

-0.430, 0.166

0.387

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.174

0.220

-0.258, 0.605

0.431

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.309

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.437

-0.136, 1.58

0.100

time_point

1st

2nd

0.708

0.297

0.125, 1.29

0.018

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.789

0.431

-1.63, 0.056

0.068

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.378

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.535

-0.584, 1.51

0.386

time_point

1st

2nd

0.617

0.319

-0.007, 1.24

0.054

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.175

0.462

-0.730, 1.08

0.705

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.617

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.873

-0.527, 2.89

0.176

time_point

1st

2nd

1.32

0.533

0.279, 2.37

0.014

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.597

0.773

-2.11, 0.918

0.441

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.405

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.573

-0.594, 1.65

0.357

time_point

1st

2nd

0.882

0.317

0.260, 1.50

0.006

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.008

0.460

-0.894, 0.911

0.986

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.222

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.314

-0.624, 0.608

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.216

0.224

-0.223, 0.654

0.336

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.438

0.324

-0.197, 1.07

0.178

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.275

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.388

-0.849, 0.673

0.821

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.421

0.261

-0.932, 0.089

0.107

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.411

0.378

-1.15, 0.329

0.277

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.459

-0.676, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.335

0.240

-0.805, 0.134

0.163

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.592

0.348

-1.27, 0.090

0.090

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.471

-1.00, 0.843

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.490

0.248

-0.976, -0.003

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.245

0.360

-0.952, 0.461

0.496

Pseudo R square

0.007

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.473

-0.519, 1.34

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.250

0.245

-0.731, 0.230

0.309

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.653

0.356

-1.35, 0.044

0.068

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.935

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.323

-2.04, 3.14

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.10

0.621

-2.31, 0.121

0.079

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.44

0.902

-3.21, 0.332

0.113

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(452) = 29.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(452) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(452) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.56], t(452) = 1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(452) = 66.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(452) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.30], t(452) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [0.33, 1.67], t(452) = 2.92, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.11, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(452) = 59.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(452) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.44], t(452) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.09], t(452) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(452) = 63.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(452) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37], t(452) = 0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.74], t(452) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(452) = 59.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(452) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.89], t(452) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.10], t(452) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(452) = 50.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(452) = 0.50, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74], t(452) = 1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.87], t(452) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(452) = 46.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(452) = -1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.52], t(452) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.14, 1.30], t(452) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.06, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.00e-02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(452) = 35.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(452) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-2.65, -0.22], t(452) = -2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.65], t(452) = -0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(452) = 53.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(452) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.08], t(452) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.06], t(452) = 0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(452) = 47.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(452) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.26], t(452) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.37], t(452) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(452) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(452) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.37, 2.22], t(452) = 2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.05, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.33], t(452) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -1.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(452) = 31.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(452) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.93], t(452) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.66], t(452) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(452) = 27.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.08e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(452) = 7.92e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -9.19e-17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.60], t(452) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.04e-03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.55], t(452) = 0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(452) = 34.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(452) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [0.27, 2.07], t(452) = 2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.12], t(452) = -0.27, p = 0.784; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.94], t(452) = 41.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(452) = 1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.28], t(452) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-7.48e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.45], t(452) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(452) = 52.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(452) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.38], t(452) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -1.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.90], t(452) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(452) = 58.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(452) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.81], t(452) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.89], t(452) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(452) = 42.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(452) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.76], t(452) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.73], t(452) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.12, 30.22], t(452) = 54.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.58], t(452) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-7.64e-05, 1.45], t(452) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.28e-05, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.45], t(452) = 0.74, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(452) = 33.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(452) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.33], t(452) = -1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.61], t(452) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(452) = 31.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(452) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.00], t(452) = 1.11, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.45], t(452) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.03], t(452) = 42.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [8.64e-03, 2.01], t(452) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.13e-03, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.04, 1.16], t(452) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [9.89e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.03], t(452) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.67, 30.67], t(452) = 38.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(452) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.06], t(452) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.34], t(452) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.73e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(452) = 90.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(452) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(452) = -0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.61], t(452) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(452) = 46.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(452) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.12, 1.29], t(452) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.04, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.06], t(452) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(452) = 34.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(452) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-7.42e-03, 1.24], t(452) = 1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.76e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.08], t(452) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(452) = 44.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.89], t(452) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [0.28, 2.37], t(452) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.92], t(452) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(452) = 46.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(452) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.26, 1.50], t(452) = 2.78, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.06, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.91], t(452) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 1.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(452) = 64.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(452) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.65], t(452) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.07], t(452) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(452) = 42.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(452) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.09], t(452) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.33], t(452) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(452) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(452) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.13], t(452) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.09], t(452) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(452) = 30.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(452) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.98, -3.46e-03], t(452) = -1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -9.26e-04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.46], t(452) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(452) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(452) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.23], t(452) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.04], t(452) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(452) = 31.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(452) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.31, 0.12], t(452) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.21, 0.33], t(452) = -1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,457.558

1,469.939

-725.779

1,451.558

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,460.755

1,485.516

-724.378

1,448.755

2.803

3

0.423

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,207.490

2,219.871

-1,100.745

2,201.490

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,201.026

2,225.788

-1,094.513

2,189.026

12.464

3

0.006

ras_confidence

null

3

2,739.524

2,751.905

-1,366.762

2,733.524

ras_confidence

random

6

2,724.427

2,749.188

-1,356.213

2,712.427

21.098

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,859.827

1,872.208

-926.914

1,853.827

ras_willingness

random

6

1,862.502

1,887.263

-925.251

1,850.502

3.325

3

0.344

ras_goal

null

3

2,266.999

2,279.380

-1,130.500

2,260.999

ras_goal

random

6

2,259.342

2,284.103

-1,123.671

2,247.342

13.657

3

0.003

ras_reliance

null

3

2,137.847

2,150.227

-1,065.923

2,131.847

ras_reliance

random

6

2,131.187

2,155.948

-1,059.593

2,119.187

12.660

3

0.005

ras_domination

null

3

2,028.439

2,040.819

-1,011.219

2,022.439

ras_domination

random

6

2,018.990

2,043.751

-1,003.495

2,006.990

15.449

3

0.001

symptom

null

3

3,211.752

3,224.132

-1,602.876

3,205.752

symptom

random

6

3,205.804

3,230.565

-1,596.902

3,193.804

11.948

3

0.008

slof_work

null

3

2,555.636

2,568.016

-1,274.818

2,549.636

slof_work

random

6

2,557.509

2,582.270

-1,272.754

2,545.509

4.127

3

0.248

slof_relationship

null

3

2,751.952

2,764.333

-1,372.976

2,745.952

slof_relationship

random

6

2,752.047

2,776.809

-1,370.024

2,740.047

5.904

3

0.116

satisfaction

null

3

2,945.672

2,958.052

-1,469.836

2,939.672

satisfaction

random

6

2,935.578

2,960.340

-1,461.789

2,923.578

16.093

3

0.001

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,343.129

2,355.509

-1,168.564

2,337.129

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,343.125

2,367.887

-1,165.563

2,331.125

6.003

3

0.111

mhc_social

null

3

2,796.449

2,808.830

-1,395.225

2,790.449

mhc_social

random

6

2,791.587

2,816.348

-1,389.793

2,779.587

10.863

3

0.012

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,916.777

2,929.158

-1,455.389

2,910.777

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,912.223

2,936.984

-1,450.112

2,900.223

10.554

3

0.014

resilisnce

null

3

2,540.270

2,552.651

-1,267.135

2,534.270

resilisnce

random

6

2,529.430

2,554.192

-1,258.715

2,517.430

16.840

3

0.001

social_provision

null

3

2,101.750

2,114.131

-1,047.875

2,095.750

social_provision

random

6

2,098.079

2,122.841

-1,043.040

2,086.079

9.671

3

0.022

els_value_living

null

3

2,214.461

2,226.842

-1,104.231

2,208.461

els_value_living

random

6

2,208.613

2,233.374

-1,098.306

2,196.613

11.849

3

0.008

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,215.930

2,228.311

-1,104.965

2,209.930

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,211.301

2,236.062

-1,099.650

2,199.301

10.629

3

0.014

els

null

3

2,756.093

2,768.474

-1,375.047

2,750.093

els

random

6

2,747.362

2,772.123

-1,367.681

2,735.362

14.731

3

0.002

social_connect

null

3

3,165.312

3,177.692

-1,579.656

3,159.312

social_connect

random

6

3,157.834

3,182.595

-1,572.917

3,145.834

13.477

3

0.004

shs_agency

null

3

2,603.305

2,615.686

-1,298.652

2,597.305

shs_agency

random

6

2,597.446

2,622.207

-1,292.723

2,585.446

11.859

3

0.008

shs_pathway

null

3

2,445.322

2,457.703

-1,219.661

2,439.322

shs_pathway

random

6

2,434.768

2,459.529

-1,211.384

2,422.768

16.554

3

0.001

shs

null

3

3,103.582

3,115.963

-1,548.791

3,097.582

shs

random

6

3,093.430

3,118.192

-1,540.715

3,081.430

16.151

3

0.001

esteem

null

3

1,672.247

1,684.627

-833.123

1,666.247

esteem

random

6

1,677.418

1,702.179

-832.709

1,665.418

0.828

3

0.843

mlq_search

null

3

2,357.608

2,369.988

-1,175.804

2,351.608

mlq_search

random

6

2,357.031

2,381.792

-1,172.515

2,345.031

6.577

3

0.087

mlq_presence

null

3

2,502.636

2,515.016

-1,248.318

2,496.636

mlq_presence

random

6

2,498.378

2,523.139

-1,243.189

2,486.378

10.258

3

0.016

mlq

null

3

2,958.668

2,971.049

-1,476.334

2,952.668

mlq

random

6

2,955.698

2,980.460

-1,471.849

2,943.698

8.970

3

0.030

empower

null

3

2,544.737

2,557.117

-1,269.368

2,538.737

empower

random

6

2,535.441

2,560.203

-1,261.721

2,523.441

15.295

3

0.002

ismi_resistance

null

3

2,071.969

2,084.349

-1,032.984

2,065.969

ismi_resistance

random

6

2,069.039

2,093.800

-1,028.520

2,057.039

8.929

3

0.030

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,250.882

2,263.263

-1,122.441

2,244.882

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,244.738

2,269.499

-1,116.369

2,232.738

12.145

3

0.007

sss_affective

null

3

2,320.857

2,333.237

-1,157.428

2,314.857

sss_affective

random

6

2,311.708

2,336.469

-1,149.854

2,299.708

15.149

3

0.002

sss_behavior

null

3

2,343.953

2,356.333

-1,168.976

2,337.953

sss_behavior

random

6

2,338.165

2,362.926

-1,163.082

2,326.165

11.788

3

0.008

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,343.724

2,356.105

-1,168.862

2,337.724

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,336.556

2,361.318

-1,162.278

2,324.556

13.168

3

0.004

sss

null

3

3,253.505

3,265.885

-1,623.752

3,247.505

sss

random

6

3,241.913

3,266.674

-1,614.956

3,229.913

17.592

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.21

125

3.07 ± 1.21

0.405

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

110

3.23 ± 1.21

-0.030

98

3.29 ± 1.20

-0.222

0.708

-0.063

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.045

recovery_stage_b

2nd

110

17.72 ± 2.93

0.090

98

18.64 ± 2.87

-0.475

0.023

-0.520

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.63

125

30.02 ± 5.63

0.637

-0.117

ras_confidence

2nd

110

30.38 ± 5.44

-0.242

98

31.71 ± 5.28

-0.589

0.075

-0.465

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.04

125

11.66 ± 2.04

0.901

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

110

11.67 ± 1.99

-0.034

98

11.96 ± 1.96

-0.239

0.288

-0.230

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.24

125

17.53 ± 3.24

0.402

-0.186

ras_goal

2nd

110

17.59 ± 3.15

-0.220

98

18.33 ± 3.08

-0.434

0.088

-0.399

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.122

ras_reliance

2nd

110

13.49 ± 2.84

-0.228

98

13.97 ± 2.76

-0.429

0.212

-0.324

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.39

125

9.56 ± 2.39

0.196

0.255

ras_domination

2nd

110

10.07 ± 2.34

-0.078

98

10.40 ± 2.30

-0.547

0.308

-0.214

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.80

125

30.21 ± 9.80

0.300

0.279

symptom

2nd

110

30.06 ± 9.44

0.311

98

28.66 ± 9.14

0.334

0.280

0.302

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.57

125

22.06 ± 4.57

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

110

22.50 ± 4.44

-0.174

98

22.60 ± 4.32

-0.219

0.864

-0.042

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.73

125

25.34 ± 5.73

0.248

-0.280

slof_relationship

2nd

110

24.98 ± 5.55

-0.159

98

26.04 ± 5.40

-0.233

0.163

-0.353

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.19

125

21.03 ± 7.19

0.133

-0.388

satisfaction

2nd

110

20.96 ± 6.93

-0.367

98

22.31 ± 6.73

-0.364

0.154

-0.384

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.75

125

11.00 ± 3.75

0.459

-0.190

mhc_emotional

2nd

110

11.10 ± 3.62

-0.242

98

11.40 ± 3.52

-0.214

0.544

-0.163

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.07

125

15.13 ± 6.07

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

110

15.92 ± 5.87

-0.258

98

16.30 ± 5.70

-0.383

0.634

-0.125

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.03

125

21.87 ± 7.03

0.719

-0.094

mhc_psychological

2nd

110

22.72 ± 6.78

-0.343

98

22.86 ± 6.57

-0.289

0.882

-0.040

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.33

125

16.94 ± 4.33

0.167

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

110

16.80 ± 4.22

-0.249

98

18.06 ± 4.12

-0.448

0.030

-0.503

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.80

125

13.91 ± 2.80

0.036

-0.502

social_provision

2nd

110

13.16 ± 2.71

0.002

98

14.25 ± 2.64

-0.228

0.004

-0.733

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.18

125

17.15 ± 3.18

0.330

-0.237

els_value_living

2nd

110

17.14 ± 3.07

-0.229

98

17.79 ± 2.99

-0.386

0.123

-0.394

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.28

125

13.10 ± 3.28

0.095

-0.440

els_life_fulfill

2nd

110

12.76 ± 3.16

-0.219

98

13.58 ± 3.07

-0.301

0.057

-0.521

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.00

125

30.26 ± 6.00

0.153

-0.394

els

2nd

110

29.89 ± 5.78

-0.263

98

31.38 ± 5.59

-0.408

0.060

-0.539

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.17

125

26.66 ± 9.17

0.295

0.271

social_connect

2nd

110

27.03 ± 8.85

0.189

98

24.72 ± 8.58

0.434

0.057

0.516

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 4.97

125

14.85 ± 4.97

0.110

-0.414

shs_agency

2nd

110

14.20 ± 4.79

-0.149

98

15.73 ± 4.65

-0.364

0.020

-0.628

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.03

125

16.34 ± 4.03

0.049

-0.470

shs_pathway

2nd

110

15.93 ± 3.91

-0.281

98

17.16 ± 3.80

-0.382

0.023

-0.571

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.57

125

31.18 ± 8.57

0.064

-0.484

shs

2nd

110

30.13 ± 8.27

-0.232

98

32.90 ± 8.01

-0.411

0.015

-0.664

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.59

125

12.73 ± 1.59

0.720

0.063

esteem

2nd

110

12.67 ± 1.57

0.115

98

12.77 ± 1.55

-0.036

0.638

-0.089

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.45

125

15.08 ± 3.45

0.100

-0.322

mlq_search

2nd

110

15.07 ± 3.38

-0.317

98

15.00 ± 3.33

0.036

0.882

0.031

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.23

125

13.62 ± 4.23

0.386

-0.195

mlq_presence

2nd

110

13.77 ± 4.11

-0.259

98

14.41 ± 4.01

-0.332

0.257

-0.268

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.90

125

28.70 ± 6.90

0.176

-0.296

mlq

2nd

110

28.84 ± 6.72

-0.331

98

29.42 ± 6.57

-0.182

0.525

-0.147

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.53

125

19.38 ± 4.53

0.357

-0.223

empower

2nd

110

19.73 ± 4.38

-0.372

98

20.27 ± 4.26

-0.375

0.372

-0.226

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.48

125

14.35 ± 2.48

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

110

14.58 ± 2.44

-0.128

98

15.01 ± 2.40

-0.388

0.201

-0.256

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.07

125

11.70 ± 3.07

0.821

0.045

ismi_discrimation

2nd

110

11.37 ± 3.00

0.215

98

10.87 ± 2.95

0.426

0.228

0.255

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.125

sss_affective

2nd

110

10.06 ± 3.50

0.187

98

9.70 ± 3.40

0.518

0.443

0.206

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.043

sss_behavior

2nd

110

9.69 ± 3.59

0.264

98

9.36 ± 3.49

0.397

0.508

0.176

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.389

-0.223

sss_cognitive

2nd

110

8.46 ± 3.61

0.137

98

8.22 ± 3.50

0.493

0.619

0.134

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.46

125

29.84 ± 10.46

0.677

-0.119

sss

2nd

110

28.19 ± 10.05

0.237

98

27.31 ± 9.70

0.547

0.519

0.191

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(413.79) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(435.67) = 0.37, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(330.63) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(372.19) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.71)

ras_confidence

1st

t(308.04) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)

2st

t(345.81) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.79)

ras_willingness

1st

t(341.30) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(383.00) = 1.06, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.83)

ras_goal

1st

t(325.62) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(366.76) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.59)

ras_reliance

1st

t(308.61) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(346.54) = 1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.25)

ras_domination

1st

t(348.39) = -1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)

2st

t(389.68) = 1.02, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.96)

symptom

1st

t(298.77) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(333.48) = -1.08, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.93 to 1.14)

slof_work

1st

t(317.20) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(357.11) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.30)

slof_relationship

1st

t(311.97) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(350.77) = 1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.56)

satisfaction

1st

t(303.36) = 1.50, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(339.70) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.22)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(304.08) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(340.66) = 0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.28)

mhc_social

1st

t(306.93) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(344.38) = 0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.96)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(302.30) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(338.29) = 0.15, p = 0.882, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.96)

resilisnce

1st

t(327.56) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(368.88) = 2.18, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.40)

social_provision

1st

t(313.44) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(352.57) = 2.93, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.82)

els_value_living

1st

t(310.88) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)

2st

t(349.41) = 1.55, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(301.21) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(336.82) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.68)

els

1st

t(296.04) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)

2st

t(329.66) = 1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.06 to 3.04)

social_connect

1st

t(303.02) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)

2st

t(339.25) = -1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.69 to 0.07)

shs_agency

1st

t(303.29) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.24)

2st

t(339.61) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.82)

shs_pathway

1st

t(314.21) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(353.52) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.28)

shs

1st

t(302.22) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(338.17) = 2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.54 to 4.99)

esteem

1st

t(377.03) = -0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(412.90) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.53)

mlq_search

1st

t(349.95) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(391.09) = -0.15, p = 0.882, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st

t(323.28) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)

2st

t(364.14) = 1.13, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.75)

mlq

1st

t(327.65) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(368.99) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.40)

empower

1st

t(311.95) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(350.74) = 0.89, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.72)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(360.94) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(400.54) = 1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.09)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(346.71) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(388.13) = -1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.31)

sss_affective

1st

t(303.93) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(340.46) = -0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.57)

sss_behavior

1st

t(305.19) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(342.12) = -0.66, p = 0.508, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.64)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(303.07) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(339.31) = -0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.73)

sss

1st

t(292.29) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.16)

2st

t(324.29) = -0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.58 to 1.81)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(234.42) = 1.61, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(221.24) = 3.39, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(217.47) = 4.18, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.89 to 2.48)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(222.95) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.65)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(220.42) = 3.09, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.32)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(217.57) = 3.05, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(224.08) = 3.91, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.42 to 1.26)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(215.86) = -2.37, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.83 to -0.26)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(219.03) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.23)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(218.15) = 1.65, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.53)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(216.67) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.26)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(216.79) = 1.52, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.91)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(217.28) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.32 to 2.03)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(216.48) = 2.05, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(220.74) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.82)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(218.39) = 1.62, p = 0.213, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(217.96) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(216.29) = 2.13, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.92)

els

1st vs 2st

t(215.38) = 2.89, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.89)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(216.61) = -3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.19 to -0.70)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(216.65) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.56)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(218.52) = 2.71, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.41)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(216.47) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.56 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(228.54) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(224.32) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.53)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(220.04) = 2.37, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(220.75) = 1.30, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.83)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(218.14) = 2.67, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(226.04) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(223.81) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.29)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(216.77) = -3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.43)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(216.98) = -2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.22)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(216.61) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.39)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(214.71) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.82 to -1.24)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(222.94) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(214.70) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.31)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(212.50) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.45)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(215.72) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(214.22) = 1.65, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.90)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(212.55) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.74)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(216.40) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.52)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(211.57) = -2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.66 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(213.40) = 1.30, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(212.89) = 1.19, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.27)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(212.03) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.23)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(212.10) = 1.80, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(212.39) = 1.93, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.60)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(211.92) = 2.56, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.07)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(214.41) = 1.86, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.28)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(213.03) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.39)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(212.78) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.81)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(211.81) = 1.64, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.76)

els

1st vs 2st

t(211.29) = 1.96, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.45)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(212.00) = -1.41, p = 0.318, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.34)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(212.02) = 1.11, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(213.11) = 2.10, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(211.91) = 1.73, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.07)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(219.14) = -0.87, p = 0.773, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(216.55) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.29)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(213.99) = 1.94, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.25)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(214.42) = 2.48, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.37)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(212.88) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(217.59) = 0.96, p = 0.673, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.66)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(216.24) = -1.62, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.09)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(212.09) = -1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.14)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(212.21) = -1.97, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.98 to -0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(212.00) = -1.02, p = 0.617, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.23)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(210.90) = -1.76, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.13)

Plot

Clinical significance